Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Standoff at Eagle Pass

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep‎ per WP:SNOW. It is abundantly clear that there will not be a consensus for any result other than Keep, and leaving this discussion to run the full 7 days is unlikely to be a productive use of anyone's time. The WordsmithTalk to me 05:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC) The WordsmithTalk to me 05:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Standoff at Eagle Pass[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Standoff at Eagle Pass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NSUSTAINED, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:SENSATIONAL: This topic is way too early (brief bursts of news coverage) and geographically limited to be considered for its own article, and even if it was, Wikipedia is not a newspaper and this article is making a far bigger deal (sensationalist) out of a otherwise limited event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashersel (talk • contribs) 00:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC) — Ashersel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • I disagree; this is one of the most notable events of Operation Lone Star, which has its own Wikipedia article. I'd say that this merits an article of its own. WorldMappings (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hard disagree, this is a notable enough event as it's a state that defying the Supreme Court orders. Vextium (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting perspective. I think it is not geographically limited, given that almost all the current Republican Governors have pledged their support to the State of Texas in this dispute, and further some are sending aid or National Guardsmen. Further, the U.S. Supreme court has touched on this case. Would appreciate your thoughts in response. Thank you Firepengu (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 January 26. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 00:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree: It represents a bigger issue currently going on in the United States and it's something that could quickly become much uglier. Far less significant events have Wikipedia articles as well. Ye9CYNMD (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, this should not be deleted Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 00:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold or even temporarily close this per WP:RAPID: "As there is no deadline, it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge ...". I'd support merging at this exact moment, but it's hard to tell how that will change over the next seven days of the standard AfD runtime. Ed [talk] [OMT] 00:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of the page, Hard disagree. As the article notes, an armed standoff between federal and state forces in regard to the immigration crisis is unprecedented in modern American history, and could lead to serious consequences. WP:NOTNEWS isn't a ban on covering recent events, it's a ban on trivial matters and writing articles like a newspaper would. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 00:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hard disagree. Texas' malcompliance with the Supreme Court on its own should make this event fairly notable. The fact that 25 other Republican governors signed onto a joint statement eliminates WP:GEOSCOPE. Sources are cited enough to the point where this doesn't fulfill the niche of WP:NOTNEWS. Operation Lone Star and the razor wire saga have been covered for weeks at this point, and while they may not be front-page news, they are still news items nonetheless, eliminating WP:NSUSTAINED. WP:SENSATIONAL may be a genuine problem, but it can most definitely be resolved through continuous page revision. There is no need to delete the article at this time, in my opinion. VoidDiamondz (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hard disagree: an armed standoff between state and federal governments is a notable event. Journob (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold - I disagree that the claim of geographically limited, but I agree on it being too early to have an article about. No matter what high court rules or state governors support, at the end of the day this is disgruntled old men fighting over access to a small piece of land. Article should be either merged or deleted if nothing happens, but it's too early to be calling for a deletion now. 5.42.77.223 (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC) — 5.42.77.223 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Disagree, this is quite an unprecedented and noteworthy incident in contemporary US politics. Much less significant incidents in our day have received their own articles on Wikipedia. If sensationalism is a concern, perhaps the article name could be changed. Standoff does sound a little “hot” considering the situation isn’t severely escalated yet, and the word is more often used to describe higher-intensity conflicts than this. WWWHHHHYYYYYY (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft keep, while I think you might have a point with WP:NOTNEWS, I’d say that the potential for this to become a constitutional crisis means that there is likely to be sustained and significant coverage in the coming days. If nothing comes of the Standoff (as is most likely) then I’d say it’d be worth re-considering deletion.
Slamforeman (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree: An armed standoff between the federal government and a state government is very noteworthy. Pauliexcluded (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft keep Given that this started 15 days ago on January 11th, and there are sources from that date until today, I'd say that for the immediate term NSUSTAINED is met. NOTNEWS is possible, though with Abbott defying a Supreme Court order and numerous other state governors seeming to support this (ABC News), this seems unprecedented in modern US history. GEOSCOPE doesn't apply here as this has had both national (NBC News, CNN) and limited international (The Independent UK) coverage. Finally as for SENSATIONAL, this has been covered by reputable non-tabloid non-sensationalistic reliable sources. This may eventually be an article that we delete, but it also has the potential to be kept. If deletion is seriously considered, I strongly advocate for draftifying per WP:ATD-I. That would give an incubation space for the article while the immediate events unfurl and for sourcing to stabilise. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ’’’Strong Keep’’’: noteworthy, plus for several GOP Governors to support and some to send the national guard in defiance of a SCOTUS ruling, must keep Alhanuty (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. This is a significant current event that will almost certainly have lasting implications even if it is resolved without escalating further. bnuuy ‖ 🐇💬 ‖ 01:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - the thing is widely talked about, involves important political figures, including elected officials, revolves around security of a sovereign country, will most likely have long lasting implications and results no matter the outcome. I don't know about the name but the content of the article definitely should be kept - people who want to delete it are just agenda-driven and love censorship. Ptok-Bentoniczny (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree - While we won't know how impactful this event will have in the future, keeping track of unprecedented events like these (especially ones that attempt to defy judicial and executive powers) is important. Right now it's best to consider this a developing incident and certainly not immediate deletion. A proper title can be decided with more happening and/or more information made available, but flat out deletion is just ludicrous. BWellsOdyssey (talk) 01:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This user should be tagged as having a single purpose account, they have no edits or contributions preceding this proposal 2603:6080:65F0:89E0:9C95:19C1:BA5A:E886 (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now/Disagree, it already appears significant to me beyond a single news burst, particularly given how Texas refused compliance with federal law and is seeing conflict between US and Texas forces. If it ultimately shows to be insignificant after a couple months, then maybe the question can be reconsidered. LaborHorizontal (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - This is a major event that has received national and international attention. Deleting it now would be a huge mistake. Imagine if we deleted it right before this escalated to the Second US Civil War. Even if nothing further happens, this is still something that will be marked in the historical record as an important event in US politics in 2024. LesbianTiamat (talk) 01:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, this is a very notable event. The number of governors supporting Texas and the risk of escalation makes it a very unique. Historyenjoyer452 (talk) 01:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding geographic limitations, 2605:A601:AE78:6F00:7973:FBB:1EBA:BEE8 (talk) 01:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - WP:NOTNEWS and WP:GEOSCOPE do not apply to a situation where you have large amounts of reliable sources from across the country. It has certainly had sustained coverage over the last few weeks. Generalissima (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Geographic limitations as an argument seems to have gone out the window once elected officials representing 50% of the landmass of the united states publicly expressed support for explicit defiance of the supremacy clause and opposition to federal forces. Even if the current locus of the conflict is only one part of one location within Texas, that balloons the conflict out far wider. It is also immediately notable as an event largely without precedent. -- Sappow (talk) 01:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, if nothing happens of this particular incident, deleting the page then to fold into the larger Operation Lone Star page as a subsection would make sense. But right now this seems like something that should remain separate. -- Sappow (talk) 02:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Very noteworthy event that has been going on for two weeks now, I would not call it very early; Can be removed or absorbed into a more encompassing article if it is shown in the future to be insignificant WiIIem (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: In today's episode of "what the fuck is going on with United States politics"... Aside from the joke, this is very notable in the crazy world of U.S. politics. qw3rty 01:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: An extremely important event of the year. Could have far-reaching consequences in American and international geopolitics. It is important to keep people informed with this page. Bauthier24 (talk) 01:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:TOOSOON applies, but I feel in this case it is self-evident that this is going to receive sustained coverage. BilledMammal (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We can always delete it later if nothing comes of it, but I very much doubt that this will have no consequences. Meshakhad (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: This will be more than likely a significant moment in American politics. At best, it is a modern nullification crisis, at worst, we're about to see a boogaloo. As politicized as the 1832 crisis but now with half of the nation. Lohengrin03 (talk) 02:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong Keep. It is of importance that we maintain this. It is not only sustained and fits the content of policy. But it also likely to escalate into something more dramatic, even though It already qualifies for an article with or without an escalation notice. Radiourgía Promithéas (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep Pretty significant event, and already has significant coverage. If you believe it is sensationalist, maybe you should consider rephrasing it to better fit Wikipedia instead of nominating it for deletion. Frigyes06 (talk) 02:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep this is clearly a significant event. Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This story has been way over-sensationalized and is not nearly as big a deal as people are acting. It's just Abbot grandstanding. There's a reason the national media is giving this very little attention. Doesn't need a whole page of its own, just write a few sentences about it on Abbott's page or something. Kevingates4462 (talk) 03:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep ...This is quite a big deal and very noteworthy. What's happening may actually veer off into "constitutional crisis" territory. There's no way we're going to delete this, right? --District9123 (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the subject is notable for a confrontation between state and federal governments over jurisdiction. Geographical limitation is not a reason for an event not being notable. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hold/Merge A lot of the arguments to keep seem to relate to a supposed defiance of a SCOTUS ruling on Shelby Park. SCOTUS has not ruled on Shelby Park. It has ruled on an emergency appeal and vacated a temporary injunction related to a pre-existing dispute, dating back to October 2023, months before Shelby Park in Eagle Pass was seized. The SCOTUS ruling only concerns the USBP and whether it can cut border wire or not (it ruled it can, pending the outcome of the actual trial). TX can't "defy" the order if it wanted to (unless defying is arguing the case before the Fifth Circuit as per normal procedure), because it does not concern them, and TX AG response to the ruling says as much. SCOTUS made no ruling on whether USBP should be let back into Shelby Park or whether Texas can keep dropping razor wire. There are a lot of political figures who should know better making grandiose claims about boldly defying the federal government, but this is par for the course grandstanding. KiharaNoukan (talk) 03:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
THANK YOU. People do not seem to understand the actual facts here. Abbott is trying to make a big show out of a little thing and people are falling for it. Kevingates4462 (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep for now, I don't see any benefit to the community to deleting this page currently. This could fizzle out tomorrow in which case I would say merge into the more general article on the matter, but it could also escalate in which case the article would need to be researched and rewritten again. Either way the content here is relevant and represents a notable constitutional crisis brewing --Goldman60 Talk — Preceding undated comment added 03:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeeP Abbott is trying to make a big show of a growing thing (constitutional crisis) he wants big but wants to be seen as small until it gets undeniably big. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 03:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I feel that the current coverage of this issue is limited, predominantly one-sided, and insufficient for a full article. This would fit well as a portion of the larger Operation Lone Star page. Boyscoutringo (talk) 04:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe this article should stay simply for historical reasons should it be needed in the future. JamesnLollify (talk) 04:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep User:Billed Mammal put it perfectly with "WP:TOOSOON applies, but I feel in this case it is self-evident that this is going to receive sustained coverage". I will add that it's inadvisable to rush to delete articles about breaking news. Editors do not have a crystal ball, and that includes lacking the ability to see that notability will not endure. As others have mentioned above, should notability fail to endure, merging or redirecting is a sensible alternative preferable to deletion, but at this time, keeping makes the most sense.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 04:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but perhaps consider a less sensational title like "2024 Eagle Pass Immigration Dispute". Standoff implies threat of deadly force, and that has not happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C1:8202:5590:50DE:4AA1:5B02:40F7 (talk) 05:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HOLD/KEEP I think it's too soon to tell if it should be merged with operation lone star, and for now it'd be best to let it unfold and see how significant this becomes. Also, I do not think WP:TOOSOON applies, because there is already verifiable coverage of the event in independent secondary reliable sources
JewelsVerne (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Standoff_at_Eagle_Pass&oldid=1199160848"